On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 11:49, Karl Fogel wrote:
> > In other words, if a directory is marked "dirty", then when we send
> > our update state-report to the server, we enumerate *all* immediate
> > children in the report, just like CVS does all the time.
> >
> > I like this solution -- it's much simpler to implement and maintain.
> > Feels cleaner to me.
>
> I like it too!

Just for the record, it doesn't feel cleaner to me, although it may be
simpler to implement. It means we have two completely separate
mechanisms for tracking the state of mixed working directories. I'm not
even 100% convinced that the new method is entirely correct, though I
can't think of any screw cases which mess it up. It was a whole lot
easier to see that the old method was correct.